Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday June 25, 2010 @03:14PM
from the hope-you've-got-a-lot-of-free-time dept.

sv_libertarian sends in this excerpt from an AP report:
"Pakistan will start monitoring seven major websites, including Google, Yahoo, and Amazon, for sacrilegious content, while blocking 17 other, lesser-known sites it deems offensive to Muslims, an official said Friday. The moves follow Pakistan's temporary ban imposed on Facebook in May that drew both praise and condemnation in a country that has long struggled to figure out how strict a version of Islam it should follow. ... 'If any particular link with offensive content appears on these websites, the (link) shall be blocked immediately without disturbing the main website,' [said Pakistan Telecommunication Authority spokesman Khurram Mehran]."

The department that will handle that will one day become larger than the IRS.

I was of the understanding that the Pakistan has good relations with China, so maybe they could get some firewall installed with a little help. If China can sensor the whole internet to the extent that it does, I have little doubt that that Pakistan could at least attempt to modify it for anti-Islamic comments instead of (or maybe in addition to) political dissent.

So I guess that's the danger of censorship and anti-net neutrality. Once they get the ball rolling, it will probably become more efficient an

I hope they get paid well to have to essentially work with insults all day long.What metrics will they use to track their job performance? If they don't find enough offensive content, will they have to create their own to justify their existence?

So if we can introduce Muhammad shaped icons into call centre systems they would have no choice but to move all the previously outsourced British tech support back into the UK and generate thousands of jobs.

They would likely block any page that showed your comment, including the main article page. That's how I interpreted their comment (they probably were thinking of Web 1.0 when they wrote it, and not the modern web of visitor-created content mixing with site content).

Best hack in the world would be to change whatever error message pops up when someone hits something blasphemous so that it redirects to Encyclopedia Dramatica. [encycloped...matica.com] I like this one. [encycloped...matica.com]

Who's being intolerant? Mocking something does not make one intolerant. Just because someone bashes aspects of Islam (or any religion or idea for that matter) does not mean they are intolerant of Muslims. Plenty of people think Raptor Jesus is funny and hate Christianity, but as long as I'm not going to to try to silence them, that doesn't mean they would not tolerate me (a Christian). It's pretty ignorant to suggest people are intolerant because some people are offended.

If he's going to trample on other people's rights over it, you're damn right I should. This isn't about making people mad. I know some Muslims, they're decent enough, and I don't really care for offending people just for the sake of it, but this isn't about offending people. This is about people who want to control other people's inherent right to free speech , and I would rather stand up and say yes, I have free speech, and if you don't like what I, or anyone else, has to say, if you find it offensive, that's fine, you have the right to be offended, but if you want to stop anyone, go fuck a pig. [encycloped...matica.com] Warning, link NSFP (not safe for Pakistan).

Oh, and maybe your idea that what other people think should influence what I can say is offensive to me, so you should stop.

Actually, this world might be a better place if Islam was actually dragged BACK to the 11th century.
This is not a joke: islamic worldview actually used to be very progressive at about that time, or little bit later (12th and 13th centuries).
Scholars of that era would consider many current fundamentalist priests to be a disgrace, non-intellectual caricatures of earlier spiritual leaders.

You miss the point of this entirely. Prohibition of blasphemy is a rule you set up for the members of *your* faith only, not for others. Trying to impose your rules over people who have not signed up for your religion has to be called on.

Are you capable of defending yourself, or are you simply hiding behind the protection of your government? Are you always certain it will be able to protect you? Will you never leave its influence? Are you foolish enough to believe that once you leave its borders, it will go to the ends of the earth to protect you? Hint: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37907132/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/ [msn.com]

I think if your willing to bum-rush me with a child or a woman with a bomb strapped to their back you can probably kill me. I also think that if your sick enough to say that some one who has done these things in the name of God is beyond any kind of redemption. I hope that eventually the world will decide radical islam is a rabid dog to be put down. Finally, I will say that if you live by the sword be prepared to die by it. You'll never sleep, you'll never be satisfied, you'll never know peace. You claim th

Imagine if these companies sought to block Pakistan or any other Islamic country. There would be uproar and claims of racism, anti-religious behaviour etc. etc. Yet when these same governments block sites for religious purposes it's considered some sort of right to choose (nevermind that it's on behalf of so many whose rights are stomped). I don't have an issue with people blocking their own access out of stupidity, but this idea that they can choose on behalf of others is a reminder of why religious rather than rational reasoning is so dangerous and has no place in politics.

Not quite: People who are strongly nationalistic believe that it's not OK for Pakistan to do it. After all, how are they supposed to see that such blatant religious control of a country is so wrong.

But they do think that blocking al-jazeera is appropriate, but first they need to get back to making sure there's a reference to God in our pledges, money, and any government document they can put it on [wikipedia.org].

It must be sad to so terrified that your religion will collapse if you don't control what the adherents read. Any religion that can only survive by censorship is a religion deserving of nothing but absolute scorn and the sincerest wish that it end up in the trash heap of worthless ideas.

This is basically the Pakistani version of the Fairness Doctrine--a government deciding what is fair and what should be read by its citizens. Situations like this are exactly why people oppose this stuff.

My thoughts exactly. If Facebook is stronger than your religion, then your religion could use a little strengthening. It reminds me of when a guy at a church I used to attend said that he saw The Da Vinci Code in the theater and it "challenged his faith." I suggested that he challenge his faith more often, it could really use the exercise.

Angels and Demons is also notable for the nastiest "don't try this at home" moment ever. Now boys and girls, if you ever stumble across an antimatter bomb that's about to go off, do not rush it to the nearest helicopter.

It's not about Islam. It's just their version of "Think of the Children!". It's about politicians trying to distract the general public from failings in their government. Trying to pretend that they are actually doing something about something. "We are seriously concerned about family and religious values in our country . . . blah, blah, blah . . . "

Pakistani Press Conference Reporter: "What is the government doing about youth unemployment?"

Government Spokesman: "By the way, have you taken a look at our new Internet Sacrilegious Content Campaign?"

Similarly, arguments that project motives onto those you wish to disagree with (such as stating that Muslm laws are based on fear) are worthy of nothing but absolute scorn.

The most serious failures in western relations with the Muslim world are based on failure of each to understand the motives of the other, typically because one side is trying to figure out what would drive itself to act the way the other is acting. You may think that people are all the same, but cultures are not.

While I'm not a Muslim and I'm rather hostile towards Islam, the guy - with but a tiny band of devout followers - managed to conquer huge swaths of land in his lifetime, and forge an empire out of the quarreling tribes of those lands that rapidly expanded further under the following rulers, and its legacy is still extremely prominent in this world today, 14 centuries after his death.

"Just another drugged out nut" doesn't do him justice. Like him or not, he was definitely not your average man.

Except for one thing: religion is not someone's identity. It is a set of ideas you can be persuaded of or reject, as shown by the capability of conversion from one to another. Disagreeing or mocking such a set is not hate, because it is not directed at the humans, nor are those humans forbidden to practice their faith if they so choose.

Unfortunately it seems you have fallen for the argument that religion deserves extra respect from criticism or mockery. There is no reason why we should mock it any less than anything we already do.

You think that the radicals have it in for Americans/Europeans who "insult islam?" That's nothing. Find somebody who is of an islamic background and opposes the idiocy of the radicals, and they might as well have a target on their head. At least the others have the excuse of being ignorant infidels... so only doing something fairly big/obvious gets them targeted.

An intolerant, closed minded, excuse of a religion deserves true excommunication. Cut off all web contact with Pakistan so that no slight, accidental or deliberate, could occur.People who insist on living in the past will be buried with it.

To make sure Slashdot is banned from Pakistan, it isn't enough to point out that Mohammed was a pedophile, although he was. It will be necessary to also insult the terrorist loving spokesman for Pakistan Telecommunication Authority Khurram Mehran, and secretly homosexual Ministry of Information Technology Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa.

From the Koran: "The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old"

If you're running a website, is there a way to detect visitors who are (probably) in Pakistan (like, is there a specific block of IPs that is assigned to Pakistan), to redirect them to a page explaining that you'd rather not risk getting a death sentence from Pakistan, so you are not willing to serve content in that jurisdiction?

I say everyone should just create an Internet Embargo against Pakistan if they're going to be like that. Cut em off.

because i can guarantee they will find offensive material on the internet and you can find a link from one website to another and basically "leapfrog" from one website to another where the offensive material is located, so why spend the time and money searching for it, i can tell you it is already there so do yourself a favor and pull the plug pakistan and any other muslim & islamic nation that is worried about being offended. it is out there already just a click away.

Shhhh . ..Stick Muhammad is sleeping. Don't wake him up with your freaky religious intolerance. He'd be disappointed by your unwillingness to be happy to just conquer and tax people you don't agree with.

So, this should be equally offensive to Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Those of y’all who consider yourselves believers in a variation of one of those themes, pay attention:

If I were to tell you a story about a talking unicorn who gave a pep talk to the reluctant hero before instructing the hero in how to wield his magic wand, you’d know instantly that I was telling you a make-believe faery tale that has no bearing on reality whatsoever.

If I were to swap out the unicorn with talking shrubbery, you’d still come to the same conclusion, but you’d think it’s a particularly weird story taking even stranger liberties with reality.

But if I were to light the shrubbery on fire, name the hero, “Moses,” and call the wand “The Staff of Aaron,” you’d know that this is the absolute truth, the Word of YHWH, to be accepted uncritically as historical fact. (Exodus chapters 3 and 4, to be specific.) Or, at the very least, it’s some sort of utterly profound morality play from which deep meaning can and should be drawn.

And you’d be a complete and total blithering fucking idiot for doing so.

"The only real question is whether you believe in the legend of Davy Crockett or not. If you do, then there should be no doubt in your mind that he died a hero's death. If you do not believe in the legend, then he was just a man, and it does not matter how he died."--Lt Worf

Intense concern over matters of religious adherence, blasphemy or other measures of religious adherence, practice or devotion. Focusing this concern on people outside your nation with substantial cultural and/or religious differences from you and/or the Internet intensifies this effect.

The overall impact of this is to make your nation appear filled with superstitious, power-hungry and intolerant zealots. People will not fear or respect you, they will dislike you for this and believe you are petty, small-minded and foolish.

You will be mocked and laughed at and your nation will remain an ignorant backwater, its people suffering from disease and maladies long since cured by more flexible and rational thinking.

Muslims read and recite the whole Qu'ran with great interest and study. Say what you want about Evangelicals, but at least they have the good sense to ignore the bible and sing meaningless pop songs about prosperity instead. It makes America a much nicer place to live.

I wish religious people would just knock it off. I'm sick of the whole silly thing. Yes I know that the majority of relgiious people are private about it and don't try to force it on everyone else, but they're still part of the problem because they allow the nutters/leaders to get away with all the crazy things that they do.

If parents/schools stopped teaching religion to children, religious beliefs would die out within three generations. They're just hand-me-down myths and superstitions, orginally concocted

Here is a list of inoffensive websites. This is a comprehensive list which will encompass every single website that is not insulting to Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Shintoism, Republicans, Democrats, Randroids, Scientists, Fantasy Writers, Raisin Smugglers, Budgie Smugglers, and Serial Murderers:

It makes me despair that so many people here somehow find a means to feel sympathetic to these guys' opinion (either explicitly or, which is more common, by taking it from their own religious point of view). As soon as you start walking down that path, you're bound to obey every randomly idiotic law some religious nut, somewhere, at some point in time, had the good idea to utter... and at this point, you know where to stick your freedom of speech. And sadly, that holds true for *all* religions.

Let me get this straight, you are going to score aggregate search companies for finding stuff on the web. Their inherent job is to find everything, which was first based on all things being equal and the better stuff would be scored higher. So you (Pak) are going to go out looking for stuff you don't like using a services that ups a pages visibility based on people viewing it.

Another giant step backwards for mankind. If these people want to be taken seriously, they need to join the 21st century. If you want to live and work alongside the rest of the world, you'll need to toughen up a bit, and not get offended every time someone draws a caricature of Muhammad, or calls him a clown.